Closer Look at Socialism/Communism

[JB3]

Your military is a socialist structure. Your tax money goes towards training troops and equipping them. Now compare how much money is spent on the military each year and compare that to how much money is spent on education each year. I think you'll notice something interesting.

Yes. We spend more on education.

 

[JB3]

NEVER before in the history of economics has a foreign nation ever exercised TRUE communism or socialism. I will explain how the Soviet Union was a corrupt fascist/capital government with a distortion of communism which would have Marx rolling in his grave. There is also a huge difference between the two. It takes lot of reading to express in full detail how these would work. It takes months or possibly years to understand this form of this political philosophy from a new perspective that isn't influenced by pro-capital propaganda.

This right here leads me to believe you have no idea what you're talking about. The USSR didn't distort anything; the philosophies of Leninism were different than the philosophies of Marx. While Lenin used Marx as a starting point, his variant of socialism was fundamentally different than that of Marx. The fact that you don't reference that difference (and in fact claim that the Russian version was 'distorted') undermines what you have written.

In fact, if you understood the fine differences between the different kinds of socialism, you would understand quite clearly that the ideas of the Soviet Union and Lenin flowed directly from those of Marx, with some additions of Lenin meant specifically for Russia's unique political environment.

Now, as for your statement that there has never been a true socialist country; that is just plain rubbish. When the different kinds of socialism are taken into account, it is quite clear that the Soviet Union was socialism (in this case Marxist-Leninist socialism). The goal of that type was for an overthrow of the capitalist regime into a dictatorship of the proletariat (Which they had), which would then dissolve into pure communism. (a worker's 'paradise') It existed, but was then corrupted once Lenin died.

 

[NotThatCreative]

Welcome to JUB, NotThatCreative.

I too am a pragmatist and so, it is nice to have an opportunity to read your thoughts. Thanks for sharing.

Your references to “libertarian socialism” interest me and I would enjoy an opportunity to more fully understand the point of view represented by that affiliation.

Thanks

Libertarian socialism is, properly speaking, a group of philosophies. Many LS's are out and out anarchists who reject the state's legitimacy. I think the state is inevitable (as Nozick wrote about in the first half of Anarchy, State, and Utopia), so I don't fall into that grouping of them. The ideal concept is to create a society as free as possible from coercive/oppressive institutions. LS's are anti-statist and anti-capitalist, by and large. Noam Chomsky is perhaps the most famous one alive. I won't get too descriptive here, as you'll likely see my particular branding of it played out over time (as you can perhaps see, I'm also influenced by Stirner and egoism as he wrote of it in The Ego and Its Own).

That may be true with respect to our daily lives and the routine associated with each individual’s normative existence, but is there not a mutual interdependence of some sort that transcends boundaries or whatever personal identification may be attributed to residential demographics? Are humans located in different parts of the world so distinctly different that there is no commonality of purpose or design that binds us together and perhaps in some way joins our fate to that of our fellows?

I will agree that our fates are intertwined and our values/goals/existence can and often does transcend boundaries and groups. I don't think humanity has a commonality of purpose though. Perhaps we can mostly agree that what we want is peace and prosperity. But we can't have that. There's a scarcity of resources. Therefore societies often conflict, sometimes violently. It's popular in international relations theory these days to compare the international situation to the state of nature as conceived by Hobbes. There are also many different systems of ethics/morals/values/ideologies that will occasionally incite violence when they clash. Furthermore, there is the in-group/out-group sociological phenomenon that I mentioned in an earlier post. Conflict is inevitable among humans.

Maybe because societies (considered on a macro scale) have an ethical obligation to look out for those less fortunate? Luck can certainly represent part of each individual (or family) outcome; however, without genuine opportunity luck provides little advantage. Similarly, without some sort of seed, a plant will not grow. I will quickly concede that success is directly related to effort, but must also point out that each outcome is a product of effort combined with ability/opportunity. A farmer can meticulously tend his fields, but without the benefit of seeds (e.g. ability/opportunity), his work will not yield a harvest.

Well-worked analogy. However, to what degree do you think society has an ethical obligation to look out for the less fortunate? I support, for example, major investment in public education, which is potentially a huge part of providing opportunity. I also do not oppose Medicaid or the food stamp program, as abject poverty can truly be a drag on the economy and thus hurt even the people who have wealth. Do I think society has an obligation to ensure that we can all enjoy certain basic luxuries? No.

I understand how government sponsored assistance may be in some ways unfair to individuals who, for whatever reason, do not perceive the fundamental value of such help or themselves require such assistance. And though it is reasonable to assume that some portion of government sponsored assistance provided to individuals, entrepreneurs, corporations, industries, or even foreign entities may be ineffective or wasteful, it doesn’t necessarily follow that an advanced society is relieved from an ethical obligation to put forward such an effort.

Since entrepreneurs are major drivers in America's economy I do not oppose a little assistance. Since they start small businesses, actually, I wholeheartedly support some assistance for them. Some of the money is wasteful, but that's inevitable so long as you're discussing a monopoly's handling of finances. Do I want the government propping up / bailing out the likes of Google, or Microsoft, or any other extremely large/powerful corporation? I'd rather it didn't, but sometimes recognize the unfortunate necessity. There is little that worries me more than private corporations and the government working together. The combination of power (from the government which can manifest its power through force) and lack of transparency/accountability (primarily a private corporation thing, though the government isn't as transparent/accountable as we'd sometimes like to think) is one I'm very wary of. Two coercive institutions, getting together...

It is sometimes said that freedom is not free. And it can be argued that the rich pay more than their share, but without the proletariat~ wealth itself would have little practical meaning or purpose. Freedom in a democracy cuts both ways.

Freedom does cut both ways. And I didn't mean to suggest that the rich should pay that same tax rate as the poor. The progressive tax system is one of those things where it doesn't matter what you think of it, it's the only realistic way to handle that revenue. I support certain rights of the proletariat against their corporate masters (the right to unionize is my favorite example as it seems to me to be one of the most important economic rights we've got). I also strongly support anti-monopoly and anti-trust legislation.

I'm defending capitalism in this thread primarily because I prefer it to communism. I fear and mistrust government power a little more than I fear and mistrust private power. Capitalism is not my ideal.

 

[saymyname]

Yes -- because lots of people want something for nothing, or at least want everyone else to take care of them.

Yeah... it didn't have anything to do with huge differences in wealth between Europe and the rest of the world. You know, it had nothing to do with imperialism, the inherent income equality gap within capitalism, oppression of the third world, or anything like that... riiiight... it was because individuals, despite all evidence to the contrary, simply don't want to work. You know, nothing like those capitalists who... oh... don't work.. and just make money off of everyone else...

Kulin is basing his arguments on historical reality. The forces that messed up communism are called free trade and freedom -- which, ironically, existing beneath the radar, are why it survived so long.

Yes, Kulin. "Freedom," was a historical force... that messed up communism. Not historical facts like the Cold War, the arms race, the space race, or the fact that the first socialist revolutions happened in economically backwards countries to begin with. Maybe you should leave that kind of political history to people who actually know what they're talking about - you're not in Kansas anymore.

Droid actually got something right this time. The Soviet Union was a degenerated worker's state.

Libertarian Socialism is utopian. How can one defend the restoration of capitalism without the use of a state? How can one distribute goods and necessities evenly without some kind of central functioning apparatus? Anarchists forget that the use of the state, and in fact the very interpretation of what constitutes as the state, is fundamentally a different interpretation in Marxism than it is in anarchism. The state under Marxism would or should not be used in the oppressive and pervasive way that it's used under capitalism and has been used under Stalinism.

Give me revolutionary democratic socialism or even radical social democracy over that fucking nonsense any day.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

Yes -- because lots of people want something for nothing, or at least want everyone else to take care of them.

I am VERY surprised at the selfishness I see on this forum.

That has nothing to do with socialism or communism. Nothing Marx talked about in his philosophy stated anything about people wanting something for nothing. And no, the Soviet Union was NOT true communism because a majority of the principals that Marx saw as the future the soviets did not even follow. They took a few basic ideas and did whatever the hell they wanted. The Soviet Union set themselves up for destruction for the very start. You clearly have never read any efficient literature. I am able to provide you with this information if you would like a non-biased source of knowledge. Communism is not about taking all the wealth and redistributing it evenly. Where in Marxism did you read that? Can you tell me the name of the book so I can pick up a copy today? Maybe distorted nations that called themselves communist did that, but what Marx has informed man-kind of has yet to exist. You clearly haven't read enough.

As for your perception of money, I completely understand your stance and can see why you feel money is a necessity. I personally believe and feel that Marx was a huge critical thinker and he knew that we would never truly understand the future because the system of class, money, greed, and status is so drilled into our heads from childhood that we become SO set in our ways.

Take Capital Punishment for example. Within the last 2-3 decades people were found guilty in the future based on new breakthroughs in technology for studying DNA and evidence. Of course, some defendants had been murdered by the States of America because they were so quick to convict while some on Death Row were given an apology after years of wasted years in prison. Now because we have flaws in our justice system, technically if we pay taxes towards a state that kills citizens based on mistakes.. aren't we as the people all guilty of MURDER?

Look at Capitalism. Those that are living in America only have their concentrated wealth in one nation because of an extensive history of theft, murder, corruption, greed, etc. It's in not just in American college history books and foreign world history books, its in museums. Because if other nations had concentrated wealth and could give their citizens knowledge to grow their economy and give the USA some competition, then surely a course of events would present a different picture in how much we view Capitalism in America? Wealth in America is at the point it is today because of a long history of exploitation.

Capitalism keeps the majority of the human race at a poverty state yet we have enough MATERIALS and non-financial resources and knowledge of technology to make homes, clothes from hemp, food, natural medicine if we stop tearing down our rain forests, etc. Of course, we could teach them technology to make these things on their own to help their people. Some people have never seen or heard of how a toilet works. We should be teaching poor nations how to make clothes, build homes from materials that are around them or in other nations (teach them a system of trade for raw materials without needing to spend "money.") Of course, its just easy for Capitalist nations to just SELL them products in stores and if they can't afford them then oh well. Think about how much easier it would be to reach out and educate the majority of the world about how there are ways to save themselves through a system of a social community without finances that relies on hard work, talents, skills etc.

Clearly we have enough resources and not talking about financial means. I mean basic essentials in this world to help others live strong healthy lives physically and emotionally yet those resources aren't taught to them only sold to them for profit. It's always about money. Money money money.

example of greed....
In the past the US government contributed to PAID farmers to not growing more crops and to destroy a surplus of some crops because nobody would buy them and couldn't make profit. Yet with those extra crops being destroyed they couldn't be sent somewhere for free to help millions of starving people in the world.. but be destroyed because you can't SELL them? They wouldn't have made a profit anyway why not feed starving families? Where is the morality in that? What about stores that throw out food in America INTO their garbage dumpsters because its expired but still isn't completely bad. They put PURPOSELY pay money to poison the food so that homeless people don't dig and eat for free.

Hemp is such an easy grown plant that can be used to make paper, fuel, durable clothes, etc. So why not teach poverty stricken nations how to use things around them and contribute a global social program with other nations to re-distribute and regulate some of these materials to help other countries that we call the third world? Or would we rather take their materials for ourselves and sell finished products back to them for PROFIT and not benefit needy people but our own wallets? Surely if Capitalism is causing all this misery it must not contain enough economic efficancy but for a few select percentage of the world? Surely there must be another way and system of government that doesn't take advantage of misery and use other people's misery as a way for us to stay wealthy? Surely that must be a more humane way of living that doesn't destroy our human values?

 

[Lostlover]

Someone's reporting my posts. My last thread was deleted...

 

[Kulindahr]

How can one defend the restoration of capitalism without the use of a state? How can one distribute goods and necessities evenly without some kind of central functioning apparatus? Anarchists forget that the use of the state, and in fact the very interpretation of what constitutes as the state, is fundamentally a different interpretation in Marxism than it is in anarchism. The state under Marxism would or should not be used in the oppressive and pervasive way that it's used under capitalism and has been used under Stalinism.

Give me revolutionary democratic socialism or even radical social democracy over that fucking nonsense any day.

Do some reading -- governance does not require government; capitalism could work without a state.

It doesn't matter what your system is; the state is force, and nothing else. Regardless of la-la land theories, where there is authority, there will be power, and where there is power, there will be misuse, and where there is misuse, you'll get authoritarianism. Take away the natural reality of capitalism and you merely allow the state to go authoritarian all the faster.

 

[Edward Twinkletoes]

A closer look at socialism -

Millions of people murdered in one century for nothing more than refusing to cooperate with wacko socialists. That's enough.

Oh. And I didn't read your bullshit. I don't need to hear any more excuses from socialists and communists. If I wasn't such a staunch civil liberties advocate, I'd say people deserve to be arrested for advocating Communism. But then I'd be just like a communist.

 

[Kulindahr]

I am VERY surprised at the selfishness I see on this forum.

The selfishness is in people. In fact it was selfishness that makes most countries work -- it gives people the energy to try to improve things for themselves, which leads to starting businesses, which improve things for other people because they have jobs, etc.

That has nothing to do with socialism or communism. Nothing Marx talked about in his philosophy stated anything about people wanting something for nothing.

Of course Marx didn't talk about it. Recognizing the reality of human self-interest would have forced him to admit that his la-la land scheme was flawed.

And no, the Soviet Union was NOT true communism because a majority of the principals that Marx saw as the future the soviets did not even follow. They took a few basic ideas and did whatever the hell they wanted. The Soviet Union set themselves up for destruction for the very start. You clearly have never read any efficient literature. I am able to provide you with this information if you would like a non-biased source of knowledge. Communism is not about taking all the wealth and redistributing it evenly. Where in Marxism did you read that? Can you tell me the name of the book so I can pick up a copy today? Maybe distorted nations that called themselves communist did that, but what Marx has informed man-kind of has yet to exist. You clearly haven't read enough.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." The more talented in a Marxist society will thus be the slaves of the less talented. There will be no reward for doing well, and thus no incentive except altruism to do better than what is necessary to get by. What there would be incentive for is hiding one's talents and abilities.

Marx definitely spoke of taking the wealth from the rich -- in a bloody revolution.

As for your perception of money, I completely understand your stance and can see why you feel money is a necessity. I personally believe and feel that Marx was a huge critical thinker and he knew that we would never truly understand the future because the system of class, money, greed, and status is so drilled into our heads from childhood that we become SO set in our ways.

"Necessity"? No, money is inevitable. Do away with the counters for the exchange of goods, and someone will reinvent them. Marx was better at criticizing capitalism than explaining how things would work without it; he turns into a mystic on the topic of how communism would work, merely declaring that labor would become what humans aspired to, with no basis at all given for the notion.

Look at Capitalism. Those that are living in America only have their concentrated wealth in one nation because of an extensive history of theft, murder, corruption, greed, etc. It's in not just in American college history books and foreign world history books, its in museums. Because if other nations had concentrated wealth and could give their citizens knowledge to grow their economy and give the USA some competition, then surely a course of events would present a different picture in how much we view Capitalism in America? Wealth in America is at the point it is today because of a long history of exploitation.

That's a mixed bag. If it were merely exploitation, the U.S. would be like a Latin American country where the elite few own 98% of everything and the rest wallow in misery. The U.S. is wealthy also because its people believed in hard work and quality products, values that are fading fast.

Capitalism keeps the majority of the human race at a poverty state yet we have enough MATERIALS and non-financial resources and knowledge of technology to make homes, clothes from hemp, food, natural medicine if we stop tearing down our rain forests, etc.

Surely if Capitalism is causing all this misery it must not contain enough economic efficancy but for a few select percentage of the world? Surely there must be another way and system of government that doesn't take advantage of misery and use other people's misery as a way for us to stay wealthy? Surely that must be a more humane way of living that doesn't destroy our human values?

Capitalism does not "cause all this misery", it has raised millions out of misery. Consider China, where misery used to be the common state of all. These days, it isn't; millions are climbing out of misery -- due to capitalism.

You don't really understand what capitalism is, or why it provides the most efficient system possible for moving resources to meet people's needs and wants. The free flow of money is a flow of information, giving feedback to tell manufacturers and shippers and everyone else what should be made and where it should go.

Marx provides no replacement for that economic necessity. The only way to do without it is to provide a state so massive and intrusive that it can keep track of it all by brute force means. That means a state, which means the state will never wither away

 

[Kulindahr]

Someone's reporting my posts. My last thread was deleted...

It was Communists.


What thread? Did I miss something?

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

A closer look at socialism -

Millions of people murdered in one century for nothing more than refusing to cooperate with wacko socialists. That's enough.

Oh. And I didn't read your bullshit. I don't need to hear any more excuses from socialists and communists. If I wasn't such a staunch civil liberties advocate, I'd say people deserve to be arrested for advocating Communism. But then I'd be just like a communist.

In my post I stated I was not a communist nor socialist. Your response hear shows your lack of openness. What socialists are you talking about? There are different forms of socialism. You fail to read my post.. so clearly you probably never read any extensive reading or educational materials. What is your definition of socialism? Have you read books on it and which ones? You do know that our American propaganda distorts many facts and tells a one-sided story to suck people in to what they feel is right. They mention one form of national socialism that of course is not the form of socialism I am discussing. It's easy to tell a portion of facts and be honest to a point.. but leave out certain facts and opinions so that technically our propaganda won't be lying.. they leave out other important facts and opinions that may lead us to question our current system of government. When telling a one-sided story that leave out the majority of other facts.. you are portraying a certain message that YOU would like citizens to abide by so they won't rebel/revolt.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

I am VERY surprised at the selfishness I see on this forum.

That has nothing to do with socialism or communism. Nothing Marx talked about in his philosophy stated anything about people wanting something for nothing. And no, the Soviet Union was NOT true communism because a majority of the principals that Marx saw as the future the soviets did not even follow. They took a few basic ideas and did whatever the hell they wanted. The Soviet Union set themselves up for destruction for the very start. You clearly have never read any efficient literature. I am able to provide you with this information if you would like a non-biased source of knowledge. Communism is not about taking all the wealth and redistributing it evenly. Where in Marxism did you read that? Can you tell me the name of the book so I can pick up a copy today? Maybe distorted nations that called themselves communist did that, but what Marx has informed man-kind of has yet to exist. You clearly haven't read enough.

As for your perception of money, I completely understand your stance and can see why you feel money is a necessity. I personally believe and feel that Marx was a huge critical thinker and he knew that we would never truly understand the future because the system of class, money, greed, and status is so drilled into our heads from childhood that we become SO set in our ways.

Take Capital Punishment for example. Within the last 2-3 decades people were found guilty in the future based on new breakthroughs in technology for studying DNA and evidence. Of course, some defendants had been murdered by the States of America because they were so quick to convict while some on Death Row were given an apology after years of wasted years in prison. Now because we have flaws in our justice system, technically if we pay taxes towards a state that kills citizens based on mistakes.. aren't we as the people all guilty of MURDER?

Look at Capitalism. Those that are living in America only have their concentrated wealth in one nation because of an extensive history of theft, murder, corruption, greed, etc. It's in not just in American college history books and foreign world history books, its in museums. Because if other nations had concentrated wealth and could give their citizens knowledge to grow their economy and give the USA some competition, then surely a course of events would present a different picture in how much we view Capitalism in America? Wealth in America is at the point it is today because of a long history of exploitation.

Capitalism keeps the majority of the human race at a poverty state yet we have enough MATERIALS and non-financial resources and knowledge of technology to make homes, clothes from hemp, food, natural medicine if we stop tearing down our rain forests, etc. Of course, we could teach them technology to make these things on their own to help their people. Some people have never seen or heard of how a toilet works. We should be teaching poor nations how to make clothes, build homes from materials that are around them or in other nations (teach them a system of trade for raw materials without needing to spend "money.") Of course, its just easy for Capitalist nations to just SELL them products in stores and if they can't afford them then oh well. Think about how much easier it would be to reach out and educate the majority of the world about how there are ways to save themselves through a system of a social community without finances that relies on hard work, talents, skills etc.

Clearly we have enough resources and not talking about financial means. I mean basic essentials in this world to help others live strong healthy lives physically and emotionally yet those resources aren't taught to them only sold to them for profit. It's always about money. Money money money.

example of greed....
In the past the US government contributed to PAID farmers to not growing more crops and to destroy a surplus of some crops because nobody would buy them and couldn't make profit. Yet with those extra crops being destroyed they couldn't be sent somewhere for free to help millions of starving people in the world.. but be destroyed because you can't SELL them? They wouldn't have made a profit anyway why not feed starving families? Where is the morality in that? What about stores that throw out food in America INTO their garbage dumpsters because its expired but still isn't completely bad. They put PURPOSELY pay money to poison the food so that homeless people don't dig and eat for free.

Hemp is such an easy grown plant that can be used to make paper, fuel, durable clothes, etc. So why not teach poverty stricken nations how to use things around them and contribute a global social program with other nations to re-distribute and regulate some of these materials to help other countries that we call the third world? Or would we rather take their materials for ourselves and sell finished products back to them for PROFIT and not benefit needy people but our own wallets? Surely if Capitalism is causing all this misery it must not contain enough economic efficancy but for a few select percentage of the world? Surely there must be another way and system of government that doesn't take advantage of misery and use other people's misery as a way for us to stay wealthy? Surely that must be a more humane way of living that doesn't destroy our human values?

Kulin, you fail to reply to my whole speech but picked certain topics to distort.



-Why does America accumulate the most resources for itself from around the world to make mainly this nation better. If third world countries over-threw dirt low wages and pressed for labor laws and higher wages such as what we have In America to be fair, then what would businesses do?

Yes our wealth in America is only in existance because throughout many many generations alot of today's third world countries were being exploited. This goes back to even way before we were a nation. Many places in Africa were rich with minerals, precious jewels, gold, and other necessary "resources" we see as our source to run our capitalist nations that are filled with the majority of our global wealth to this day. Many of today's third world were literally raped of their materials and were milked dry by mainly WHITE European colonies and countries. Eventually over time don't you think that wealth was accumulated towards a certain portion of the world? How do you think Great Britain (Now the UK) was able to start colonies here in today's USA? Where did they get those materials to build ships.. gold to build their economies? Think about that. So if Africa and South America were filled with all this natural wealth... why are they so deep into poverty and we the northern portion (1st world) are so concentrated with wealth?

No Capitalism doesn't pull others out of misery, it keeps other nations at the bottom so we can make the most profit possible.

Americans can believe in hard work all they want to but the fact that they are ABLE to get jobs so they can work hard is another topic to study more intensively.

Ask yourself why other nations can't bring themselves up in social class if Capitalism is truly fair. If we want to be fair, lets give the third world back their gold and jewels so we can apologize for what our ancestors did in sucking wealth for their own selfish Capitalist greed to oppress everyone below them. Sure we have natural resources and have made a benefit from it (California Gold Rush.) But cummon.. open a world history book and quit being so close minded towards others.

So yes over hundreds of years our wealth was formed by exploiting others which leads to why we have air conditioning, the cheapest gas prices in the world, text books, food, clothes, a chance to actually GET a job whether you are devoted to being a hard worker or not because there are tons of hard workers all over the third world they just can't get a job due to a lack of resources. Americans do not know how good they have it and they are spoiled selfish assholes. Instead of hating nations like France who see our selfishness, think about WHY other countries hate us for the disgusting things we've done?

Capitalism isn't all bad (Its just not enough), not all wealthy people are bad, and not all Americans are selfish because some see just how lucky they are compared to the rest. Some Actually give a fuck and have human compassion and know some big change must be made.

I would welcome Capitalism with an open heart for a global economy if the leading nations would TEACH everyone else how to move up in class and not care about their own competition. Give them knowledge of the resources around them, and put strict regulation on our global Capitalist economy so that greedy people don't stomp people out of place.

 

[JB3]

I am VERY surprised at the selfishness I see on this forum.

That has nothing to do with socialism or communism. Nothing Marx talked about in his philosophy stated anything about people wanting something for nothing. And no, the Soviet Union was NOT true communism because a majority of the principals that Marx saw as the future the soviets did not even follow. They took a few basic ideas and did whatever the hell they wanted. The Soviet Union set themselves up for destruction for the very start. You clearly have never read any efficient literature. I am able to provide you with this information if you would like a non-biased source of knowledge. Communism is not about taking all the wealth and redistributing it evenly. Where in Marxism did you read that? Can you tell me the name of the book so I can pick up a copy today? Maybe distorted nations that called themselves communist did that, but what Marx has informed man-kind of has yet to exist. You clearly haven't read enough.

You don't know enough about Marxism and Leninisim to be making these accusations of others. This is evidenced by your continual and persistent distortion of the Soviet Union and their version of Marx's ideas. It is laughable that you talk down to someone like Kulindahr when you're not even able to recognize the difference between straight Marxism and Marxist-Leninism.

And I find it laughable you can honestly try and claim that communism is not about taking the wealth and redistributing it evenly. That is the very basis of Marx's philosophies, and its ridiculous for anyone that claims to 'know' about Marx to try and claim otherwise.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

You don't know enough about Marxism and Leninisim to be making these accusations of others. This is evidenced by your continual and persistent distortion of the Soviet Union and their version of Marx's ideas. It is laughable that you talk down to someone like Kulindahr when you're not even able to recognize the difference between straight Marxism and Marxist-Leninism.

And I find it laughable you can honestly try and claim that communism is not about taking the wealth and redistributing it evenly. That is the very basis of Marx's philosophies, and its ridiculous for anyone that claims to 'know' about Marx to try and claim otherwise.

What and where have you read on Marxism? There can't be any distribution of wealth because there would be no wealth OR poverty. Capitalism encourages a system of social class. Our wealth in the states exists because of exploitation of foreign nations. People only develope wealth through working hard at their job BECAUSE of corruption. Sure the person may not be evil themselves... dude... do you read anything at all or know anything about world history? Do you believe in those same American out-dated text books that fed you the biased garbage you know today?

I make these GREAT arguments that nobody on this forum can even respond to which EXPLAINS my reasoning.. but you guys take a small sample of what catches your eye (one small paragraph) and you reply to just that.. and make it very one-sided. You spew out the same garbage and propaganda that circulates our media like an auto-mated robot.

The historical facts of the this nation can't be all black and white based on what twisted propaganda tells you from childhood so that it gets ingrained into you. Look beyond what you are taught and expand your views from multiple sources and listen to the history of other nations. Hear everyone's side. READ entire books from start to finish and not skim. The information is available to anyone who wants to learn, people choose to live their life with a blind eye and not care. It brings out the stupidity in our country that has become a stereotype.

As you take what was drilled into your head since childhood you have to ask yourself if your own philosophy is based because you were TAUGHT to believe your way of thinking and how you process ideas cognitively, or do you live your life on that basis because you sought every piece of information you could and realized there is more you DON'T know that made you want to study more?

 

[JB3]

What and where have you read on Marxism? There can't be any distribution of wealth because there would be no wealth OR poverty. Capitalism encourages a system of social class. Our wealth in the states exists because of exploitation of foreign nations. People only develope wealth through working hard at their job BECAUSE of corruption. Sure the person may not be evil themselves... dude... do you read anything at all or know anything about world history? Do you believe in those same American out-dated text books that fed you the biased garbage you know today?

I make these GREAT arguments that nobody on this forum can even respond to which EXPLAINS my reasoning.. but you guys take a small sample of what catches your eye (one small paragraph) and you reply to just that.. and make it very one-sided. You spew out the same garbage and propaganda that circulates our media like an auto-mated robot.

The historical facts of the this nation can't be all black and white based on what twisted propaganda tells you from childhood so that it gets ingrained into you. Look beyond what you are taught and expand your views from multiple sources and listen to the history of other nations. Hear everyone's side. READ entire books from start to finish and not skim. The information is available to anyone who wants to learn, people choose to live their life with a blind eye and not care. It brings out the stupidity in our country that has become a stereotype.

As you take what was drilled into your head since childhood you have to ask yourself if your own philosophy is based because you were TAUGHT to believe your way of thinking and how you process ideas cognitively, or do you live your life on that basis because you sought every piece of information you could and realized there is more you DON'T know that made you want to study more?

I have read Marx, Lenin, Stalin, as well as Mao. (I have also read Hitler's Mein Kampf, among other literature, as part of a comparative politics class, and for other classes of a similar nature) None of them support your conclusions, and none would agree with any of the premises you have stated here. So what have YOU read to leave you with such gaping holes in your understanding of Marxism and socialism?

You have failed to address a very significant criticism that I have brought forth. Do you or do you not understand the difference between Marxism and Marxist-Leninism? If not, I would kindly suggest you do more research instead of bashing fellow members for some make-believe lack of understanding.

Oh and btw, being all self-righteous and arrogant (the "I make all of these GREAT arguments" BS) isn't helping your cause, especially when there are holes big enough in your knowledge and understanding to drive a USSR-sized truck through. Perhaps you should spend less time attacking fellow members for their lack of understanding and more time filling in those gaps in your understanding.

 

[opinterph]

Many [Libertarian Socialists] are out and out anarchists who reject the state's legitimacy. I think the state is inevitable (as Nozick wrote about in the first half of Anarchy, State, and Utopia)

Nozick argues in favor of a minimal state, “limited to the narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts, and so on.” When a state takes on more responsibilities than these, Nozick argues, rights will be violated. To support the idea of the minimal state, Nozick presents an argument that illustrates how the minimalist state arises naturally from anarchy and how any expansion of state power past this minimalist threshold is unjustified. [Wiki]

Thanks for your overall response. I am parsing your statements in order to build the concept in my own mind and apologize if it seems I am ignoring any particular principles you may consider important. Please do not hesitate to remind me about specific points or concepts as you notice their relevance to my replies. I also understand that you are corresponding in a number of other threads and don’t mind if your interaction with my posts are slow. I sometimes get busy on other things too and may therefore be slow in responding.

I understand the differentiation between “out and out anarchists” and your identification as a “Minarchist” Libertarian Socialist.

As you will note, I am providing some basic links to highlight concepts associated with terms and publications you mentioned in the hopes of establishing a common reference and to perhaps assist other readers in better understanding those elements of our discussion. Please feel free to dispute representations quoted from the links, expand upon them, or offer alternative links that more appropriately represent a summary of your interpretations.

I don't think humanity has a commonality of purpose

I’m glad you picked up on this remark. Thinking about it more, I realize the concept may represent a useful basis from which to further discuss our political philosophies.

I originally included the notion as part of an interrogatory statement that appeared to argue in favor of an assumption …

Are humans located in different parts of the world so distinctly different that there is no commonality of purpose or design that binds us together and perhaps in some way joins our fate to that of our fellows?

Realistically, I tend to agree that humanity lacks a commonality of purpose. We could investigate this idea further to try and identify such a purpose, but regardless of the attempt, the end result will likely remain inconclusive. I will venture to guess that some people will disagree with the non-acceptance of some commonality of purpose though and that dispute, in and of itself, could ostensibly result in a source of conflict.

Perhaps we can mostly agree that what we want is peace and prosperity.

No, I’m not willing to endorse that concept – yet. For the sake of argument, I think it is reasonable to assume that some people prefer conflict and upheaval, (though I am not presently offering any evidence to substantiate that statement.)

The ideal concept is to create a society as free as possible from coercive/oppressive institutions.

… I'm also influenced by Stirner and egoism as he wrote of it in The Ego and Its Own

[Stirner's] book portrays the life of a human individual as dominated by authoritarian concepts ('fixed ideas' or 'spooks'), which must be shaken and undermined by each individual in order for that person to act freely. These concepts include primarily religion and ideology, and the institutions claiming authority over the individual. The primary implication of undermining these concepts and institutions is, for Stirner, an ethical egoism, which can be said to transcend language. According to him, not only is God an alienating ideal, as Feuerbach had argued in The Essence of Christianity (1841), but so too are humanity itself, nationalism and all such ideologies. According to Stirner, individuals should only entertain temporary associations between themselves, agreeing in mutual aid and cooperation for a period of time, but only when in each individual's interest [Wiki]

The concept of “ethical egoism” may be subject to variations of interpretation. To some extent, I think it means that people are responsible for the outcomes that come about through their own choices and that acting in one’s self-interest is intellectually astute, morally righteous, and empirically justified. Following the advice of Stirner, persons who fail to shake loose from authoritarian concepts (as individuals) are likely to remain ignorant and will therefore be prone to make decisions that result in adverse outcomes. Put another way, ignorant people have a reduced capacity to act freely.

It's popular in international relations theory these days to compare the international situation to the state of nature as conceived by Hobbes.

The concept of state of nature was posited by the 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. Hobbes wrote that “during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man” (Leviathan, ch. XIII). In this state any person has a natural right to the liberty to do anything he wills to preserve his own life, and life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (loc. cit.). He believed that in the international arena, states behave as individuals do in a state of nature.

Within the state of nature there is no injustice, since there is no law, excepting certain natural precepts, the first of which is "that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it” (Leviathan, ch. XIV); and the second is “that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself” (loc. cit.). From this, Hobbes develops the way out of the state of nature into civil government by mutual contracts. [Wiki]

I see in Hobbs one possible source of your assertion that “what we want is peace and prosperity.” And it does not seem inconsistent to arrive at that conclusion within the context of ethical egoism. Whether at a personal level, some intermediate type of corporate level, or in the larger context of societies, conflict retards progress and seems illogical – unless there is a motivation that prompts aggression. In that regard (and without necessarily diminishing the concept of ethical egoism), I think it is reasonable to make judgments about conflict(s) and to objectively criticize some portion of those actions. I suspect you agree.

… we have the largest economy by far and the largest military by far, so who's going to stop the US? It's essentially might makes right, which I don't ethically/morally agree with.

to what degree do you think society has an ethical obligation to look out for the less fortunate?

I certainly do not advocate unbridled altruism, but think there is a correlation between accumulation of wealth through the mechanisms of any societal economy and the fundamental health of that society. Essentially, I think the less fortunate should be afforded an opportunity to increase their abilities and perhaps be given some seeds to get started. I reject any scheme that has the effect of holding people down and thus preventing them from achieving a reasonable degree of their potential. I don’t suggest that the less fortunate should be guaranteed certain basic luxuries – I merely think that any society that ignores the needs of the less fortunate, while permitting a privileged few to amass great wealth, is unhealthy and should anticipate that the resulting disparity may someday bring about a revolution of some sort. In the same spirit, any society that substitutes a burden on its most productive citizens to provide for those who are unwilling to expend an appropriate effort to meet their own needs may someday face a similarly rude awakening. In any case, turmoil from within a social institution can sometimes be much more disruptive than external threats.

Perhaps what bothers me about [my impression of] your presentation is a lack of interest in people that are unknown to you. I understand that you have no personal obligation to improve the quality of life for other people. Nor are you somehow inherently responsible for their nourishment, safety, etc. At the same time, I don’t understand how you perceive a value in isolating yourself from them, though I confess that perhaps my impression is incorrect. I cannot help but be reminded of the novel Atlas Shrugged, but even in that fictitious society the most productive citizens were using their actions to illustrate to their fellow citizens that excessive government control was effectively removing their motivation to continue supporting that government and the society from which it gained its legitimacy. In that respect, “the strike” represented a form of social activism.

Please correct the flaws in my [thus far] interpretation.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulin, you fail to reply to my whole speech but picked certain topics to distort.

I picked critical errors you make and addressed them.

-Why does America accumulate the most resources for itself from around the world to make mainly this nation better. If third world countries over-threw dirt low wages and pressed for labor laws and higher wages such as what we have In America to be fair, then what would businesses do?

Do you mean things like the wages Nike pays overseas?

If you do, it shows you have a clue about economic reality. The wages Nike pays overseas have been the target of ignorant people comparing them to wages here, without doing what economics tells us: compare them to what's happening in those countries. Do that, and you'll find that Nike is paying far higher than anyone else in those places, and as a result is dragging up the wage scale so that more and more workers in those places are getting paid better.

That's capitalism raising people up out of the dirt. It's capitalism giving people even more than what they would have dared to consider "fair". It's capitalism working to get more people jobs to give more people products they want.

Yes our wealth in America is only in existance because throughout many many generations alot of today's third world countries were being exploited. This goes back to even way before we were a nation. Many places in Africa were rich with minerals, precious jewels, gold, and other necessary "resources" we see as our source to run our capitalist nations that are filled with the majority of our global wealth to this day. Many of today's third world were literally raped of their materials and were milked dry by mainly WHITE European colonies and countries. Eventually over time don't you think that wealth was accumulated towards a certain portion of the world? How do you think Great Britain (Now the UK) was able to start colonies here in today's USA? Where did they get those materials to build ships.. gold to build their economies? Think about that. So if Africa and South America were filled with all this natural wealth... why are they so deep into poverty and we the northern portion (1st world) are so concentrated with wealth?

The alternative is no wealth at all. What you're condemning here isn't capitalism, BTW, it's imperialism and mercantilism. If it had been capitalism, the British & others would have offered value for value.

Africa and South America are mired in poverty for a number of reasons, reasons that have nothing to do with capitalism. Primary is social structure, which is feudal in nature and purposely concentrates wealth and power in the hands of a few, and stifles creativity. The U.S. and other countries have wealth because they have/had social structures which allow a man to be rewarded for hard work and for his own ideas, which invigorates and encourages work and ideas.

No Capitalism doesn't pull others out of misery, it keeps other nations at the bottom so we can make the most profit possible.

Do you see the internal contradiction in that statement?
Keeping other people at the bottom means you don't have customers. Not having customers means paltry profits. Capitalism wants people to have money to spend, which means it does not want people anywhere to be mired in misery or poverty.

Americans can believe in hard work all they want to but the fact that they are ABLE to get jobs so they can work hard is another topic to study more intensively.

Yes, Americans have jobs because capitalism provides them. Many places don't have jobs because they don't let capitalism work.

Ask yourself why other nations can't bring themselves up in social class if Capitalism is truly fair. If we want to be fair, lets give the third world back their gold and jewels so we can apologize for what our ancestors did in sucking wealth for their own selfish Capitalist greed to oppress everyone below them. Sure we have natural resources and have made a benefit from it (California Gold Rush.) But cummon.. open a world history book and quit being so close minded towards others.

Other nations can bring themselves up. The former Warsaw Pact nations, now out from under the 'socialist' thumb of Russia, have embraced capitalism and their standards of living are rising. South Korea brought itself up through capitalism. China is now bringing itself up through capitalism.

Capitalism provides jobs where there were none. Socialism complains that there aren't any jobs... and does nothing except blame capitalism.

So yes over hundreds of years our wealth was formed by exploiting others which leads to why we have air conditioning, the cheapest gas prices in the world, text books, food, clothes, a chance to actually GET a job whether you are devoted to being a hard worker or not because there are tons of hard workers all over the third world they just can't get a job due to a lack of resources. Americans do not know how good they have it and they are spoiled selfish assholes. Instead of hating nations like France who see our selfishness, think about WHY other countries hate us for the disgusting things we've done?

"Hundreds of years"? There's not a history source on the planet that will support you here. For more than the first half of its history, America built wealth by doing what everyone else could have done but didn't: making things and selling them to each other, and then selling them to the world. America has spent more of its history taking its own resources and sending them all over the world than it has relied on getting resources from elsewhere.

In most of the world, the problem is not lack of resources, it's lack of leaders who will allow people the freedom to do as they wish with what is theirs. A good proof of that can be seen in an international program started by some bankers, making small loans to women to start their own businesses. These are all in Third World countries -- and the vast majority of these women pay back those loans faster than required, and go on to hire others, thus lifting people around them.

That's capitalism, lifting people out of misery. That's capitalism, allowing people to do for themselves what no one could do for them before. That's capitalism, spreading wealth around as products are sold and employees paid.

Capitalism isn't all bad (Its just not enough), not all wealthy people are bad, and not all Americans are selfish because some see just how lucky they are compared to the rest. Some Actually give a fuck and have human compassion and know some big change must be made.

I would welcome Capitalism with an open heart for a global economy if the leading nations would TEACH everyone else how to move up in class and not care about their own competition. Give them knowledge of the resources around them, and put strict regulation on our global Capitalist economy so that greedy people don't stomp people out of place.

LOL

You can't really be that ignorant. There's enough information on the internet that enterprising people anywhere can start their own businesses and thrive.

Why don't they? Because in large parts of the world, tribalism reigns, which means you don't do anything the tribal leaders don't order, and you spend more energy on fighting other tribes than on getting anywhere -- that covers a lot of Africa and parts of Asia. Because in other places feudalism reigns, and the wealthy would rather sit on their wealth than use it -- that kind of sums up South America.

It doesn't even take resources to generate wealth, or at least not your own. Look at Japan: overwhelmingly, the resources it makes use of come from somewhere else to be turned into products people want. So saying countries should have their wealth back so they can generate wealth is false: all they need is determination and unleashing the human spirit.


Note: some of what you complain about is corporatism, not capitalism. Corporatism seeks to stifle competition and control markets; capitalism thrives on competition and wants all markets free.

 

[Kulindahr]

What and where have you read on Marxism? There can't be any distribution of wealth because there would be no wealth OR poverty. Capitalism encourages a system of social class. Our wealth in the states exists because of exploitation of foreign nations. People only develope wealth through working hard at their job BECAUSE of corruption.

You're playing games with the meaning of the word "wealth".

If I sit in a hut on the floor to eat dinner, I am poor, even if everyone else in the world does the same.
If we all decide to go out and make low tables, and now we eat off them, we have all gained in wealth, even though we all have the same things.
If we then make a chair and a tall table we can sit and and eat from, we are all wealthier than before, even though we all have the same thing.
If we put down wooden floors, replace the hut walls with good brick, put on another half dozen rooms so the original is now a dining room, and make the table large enough we can have five guests, and add chairs for all of them, we are all vastly wealthier -- even though we all have the very same thing.

Now, where did this wealth come from? We made it.

Now let's say I become good at making bricks, and Joe down the jungle trail is good at making chairs. So I trade him some bricks for some chairs. The same thing starts happening all over. Pretty soon there are lamps and ovens and doors and windows and doorbells and more, and different people who are good at making them do that and trade them for other things. We all end up with more things, and we're all wealthier. No one got exploited.

Then someone decides he wants help making his new widget, that is so popular. How is he supposed to get them to help? He could offer them widgets, but they only need so many of those. Instead what he has to offer, because there's no other way to do it, is symbols of some set value that they can trade to people who make things, to get those things. These, we call money. So our someone now has employees, he can make more widgets -- and the employees use their money to buy things they want. Mr. Someone is wealthier, the employees are wealthier, and as this is duplicated, everyone is wealthier.
No one got exploited. There wasn't any corruption.

These illustrate capitalism. They show that your definition of wealth is false, and in fact specifically designed for use in making accusations, not for serving any useful function in describing reality. They also show that what you're objecting to is not capitalism, because they show that capitalism produces wealth without need to exploit or become corrupt.

I make these GREAT arguments that nobody on this forum can even respond to which EXPLAINS my reasoning.. but you guys take a small sample of what catches your eye (one small paragraph) and you reply to just that.. and make it very one-sided. You spew out the same garbage and propaganda that circulates our media like an auto-mated robot.

I've replied to key points to show where your arguments fall down.

You also spend a lot of time asking questions. Questions aren't arguments, and generally I'd rather address the foundations the questions reveal than waste time answering the questions.

The historical facts of the this nation can't be all black and white based on what twisted propaganda tells you from childhood so that it gets ingrained into you. Look beyond what you are taught and expand your views from multiple sources and listen to the history of other nations. Hear everyone's side. READ entire books from start to finish and not skim. The information is available to anyone who wants to learn, people choose to live their life with a blind eye and not care. It brings out the stupidity in our country that has become a stereotype.

Been there, done that, learned that the reality of how people live and work and interact produces capitalism. It doesn't produce the la-la land Marx daydreamed about -- for his utopia, something other than human beings are needed.

As you take what was drilled into your head since childhood you have to ask yourself if your own philosophy is based because you were TAUGHT to believe your way of thinking and how you process ideas cognitively, or do you live your life on that basis because you sought every piece of information you could and realized there is more you DON'T know that made you want to study more?

Been there, still doing that.

But for you, I'd say the same, but also add that you have to ask if the idea you're touting seems great because there's a firm foundation under it or because it excited you and now you're hung on it?

 

[NotThatCreative]

I have also not quoted you entirely, though fear for misrepresenting you did make me quote you more extensively than was probably necessary...

I understand the differentiation between “out and out anarchists” and your identification as a “Minarchist” Libertarian Socialist.

Socially I could definitely be considered minarchist (though I do believe in public education, it's as much for economic reasons as any other). However, minarchism is economically more capitalist than American libertarianism (there are two main strands of that, there's paleolibertarianism as advocated by the Ludwig von Mises Institute and then there's the brand of classical liberalism advocated by the Cato Institute which they call market liberalism). The first half of Nozick's work I thought did a great job justifying the state (primarily on the grounds of its inevitability, by my understanding and interpretation). In the second half of his book he argues against going beyond the minimum threshold. The second half I disagree with on several points. Nozick was not a libertarian socialist.

The best way I've heard my stance on government intervention in the economy summed up was by a professor I had who said that, since I concede the existence of government, I view it as a sort of balancer against the power of private corporations.

Micharchist libertarian socialist may be (Minarchists would argue "definitely is") a contradiction in terms. My support for as much economic intervention as I do would disqualify me. The problem with Marx and other communist schools of thought is that they do reduce private power, but boost government power (at least temporarily, if not permanently, depending on which school of thought) by an almost equal level. I'd ideally like to see both reduced. Decentralization of power is one way to work toward that. As such, I'm a strong supporter of states' rights and local governance.

There are a couple of ideas which I'll toss in here, that I think have something to offer though I don't wholly agree with, to emphasize my disagreement with capitalism. One, worker's councils.

A workers' council is the phenomenon where a single place of work, such as a factory, school, or farm, is controlled collectively by the workers of that workplace, through the core principle of temporary and instantly revocable delegates.

I've also wondered (presumably I read or heard this at some point, I just can't recall where) if perhaps there isn't a way to aid in workers' self-management that would involve changing the idea that the company's higher-ups could themselves possess 51% of the company's stocks. But rather a significant chunk of stocks would be legally required to be automatically distributed among the workers.

In both cases something would, of course, be needed in order to ensure that the majority can't oppress a minority via tyranny of the majority (always a concern when discussing democracy and voting).

Realistically, I tend to agree that humanity lacks a commonality of purpose. We could investigate this idea further to try and identify such a purpose, but regardless of the attempt, the end result will likely remain inconclusive. I will venture to guess that some people will disagree with the non-acceptance of some commonality of purpose though and that dispute, in and of itself, could ostensibly result in a source of conflict.

The concept of “ethical egoism” may be subject to variations of interpretation. To some extent, I think it means that people are responsible for the outcomes that come about through their own choices and that acting in one’s self-interest is intellectually astute, morally righteous, and empirically justified. Following the advice of Stirner, persons who fail to shake loose from authoritarian concepts (as individuals) are likely to remain ignorant and will therefore be prone to make decisions that result in adverse outcomes. Put another way, ignorant people have a reduced capacity to act freely.

My interpretation of that matches yours, though I feel perhaps I should stress that the adverse outcomes you referred to only matter in ethical egoism if they harm the moral agent in question. Which is to say, Stirner's ethical egoism (he also advocated psychological egoism and egoist anarchism) has no place for caring about concepts like the nation, the community, humanity, etcetera and a decision beneficial to an individual but harmful to some such concept should be undertaken by said individual.

In the second half of his book he discusses property quite a bit and the moral rightness (or at least not moral wrongness) of the "might makes right" concept. This second part influences me less.

Stirner was quite hostile to humanism, patriotism, and religion. I remember in particular a passage in which he writes that he does, in fact, believe in some sort of deity. But he would never bow down to this god. He rejects it. He similarly rejects humanism, which he persuasively argues simply sets up Man as a new god.

On freedom. "A race of altruists is necessarily a race of slaves. A race of free men is necessarily a race of egoists." So what you said was correct, but it's not through ignorance that one loses freedom. Rather, (as I read it) ignorance is another byproduct of our enslavement to patriotism, humanism, religion, etcetera.

I see in Hobbs one possible source of your assertion that “what we want is peace and prosperity.” And it does not seem inconsistent to arrive at that conclusion within the context of ethical egoism. Whether at a personal level, some intermediate type of corporate level, or in the larger context of societies, conflict retards progress and seems illogical – unless there is a motivation that prompts aggression. In that regard (and without necessarily diminishing the concept of ethical egoism), I think it is reasonable to make judgments about conflict(s) and to objectively criticize some portion of those actions. I suspect you agree.

Yes.

I certainly do not advocate unbridled altruism, but think there is a correlation between accumulation of wealth through the mechanisms of any societal economy and the fundamental health of that society. Essentially, I think the less fortunate should be afforded an opportunity to increase their abilities and perhaps be given some seeds to get started. I reject any scheme that has the effect of holding people down and thus preventing them from achieving a reasonable degree of their potential.

The last sentence is stronger than I'd word it (from a pragmatic point of view), but otherwise there's nothing there I necessarily find fault in. However, what kind of social services would you have in mind to accomplish the goal of "affording opportunity" and allowing them to "achieve a reasonable degree of their potential"? Education would be included, I assume. What about housing, food, and health care though? Does society have an obligation to provide such necessities to its citizens? You say you're a pragmatist, so I also wonder if you think our society in the here and now should/can provide all this?

I don’t suggest that the less fortunate should be guaranteed certain basic luxuries – I merely think that any society that ignores the needs of the less fortunate, while permitting a privileged few to amass great wealth, is unhealthy and should anticipate that the resulting disparity may someday bring about a revolution of some sort.

Would the "revolution of some sort" be necessarily a bad thing? What do you think of such actions which seem moderate in nature but are actually designed to prop up an oppressive capitalist system? (I'm thinking in historical terms of FDR's reforms which allowed capitalism to survive) Do you think there's a point where it'd be better to have some form or revolution rather than a slow creeping toward slightly better conditions?

Perhaps what bothers me about [my impression of] your presentation is a lack of interest in people that are unknown to you. I understand that you have no personal obligation to improve the quality of life for other people. Nor are you somehow inherently responsible for their nourishment, safety, etc. At the same time, I don’t understand how you perceive a value in isolating yourself from them, though I confess that perhaps my impression is incorrect.

I think human life inherently has some sort of value. But the people I know, the people I'm close to, matter a great deal more to me. I value them and their lives a great deal more. I don't think I can kill someone I've never met before and it'll be okay even if all I wanted was their shoes. For life does have some sort of inherent value, humans most so, followed by such animals as chimps/monkeys/apes and then dogs/cats/other pets.

I also don't like what's mine being taken by force to help those far off with whom I have no contact. Once they're provided with the opportunity to improve their lot, it is their responsibility to do so. One of the problems with the state is that it's a very large institution. Large institutions first of all are more likely to be oppressive and get away with it. Secondly, at that size I am working in common cause with people I have nothing to do with. My taxpayer dollars are funding people in Florida just as much as people near where I'm at. Decentralization of social programs and aid would be ideal.

Sometimes it's in our self-interest to help those in need (can you imagine if the US were the only major country not to help Haiti). And worldwide aid from America does help its image (look at Africa, where President Bush was widely praised during the last visit there of his presidency) which in turn helps the US's security. Therefore it's in my self-interest, so long as this system exists, for some of my tax dollars to help out the poor and devastated elsewhere. Taking enough tax dollars to help ensure their economic equality is too much. It's a balance that's hard to strike, but it's worth the effort. For if you're not equal enough economically, that leads to oppression as surely as the government sucking in too many tax dollars is a form of oppression. (One of the things we too often forget in this country is that all government action, all laws, all regulations, everything, is backed by the largest military in the world. It may not use it, but the threat of incarceration or even National Guard/military intervention is always there.)

I'm not wholly sure, though, I understand what you mean by "isolating" myself from those I don't know, so I may have answered that all wrong.

 

[opinterph]

There are a couple of ideas which I'll toss in here, that I think have something to offer though I don't wholly agree with, to emphasize my disagreement with capitalism. One, worker's councils.

A workers' council is the phenomenon where a single place of work, such as a factory, school, or farm, is controlled collectively by the workers of that workplace, through the core principle of temporary and instantly revocable delegates.

I've also wondered (presumably I read or heard this at some point, I just can't recall where) if perhaps there isn't a way to aid in workers' self-management that would involve changing the idea that the company's higher-ups could themselves possess 51% of the company's stocks. But rather a significant chunk of stocks would be legally required to be automatically distributed among the workers.

In both cases something would, of course, be needed in order to ensure that the majority can't oppress a minority via tyranny of the majority (always a concern when discussing democracy and voting).

Both of the examples you shared seem to me more similar than different. The worker’s council reminds me of a cooperative of some sort wherein every participant is a stakeholder in the enterprise and to various degrees all its members share in managing each other’s efforts in order to complete the tasks required to reach a mutually beneficial outcome. Such a design is perhaps appropriate for mechanistic processes or systems involving a sequence of routine challenges. Potential deficiencies in the design would conceivably involve the group’s need to respond to non-routine challenges or changing conditions, a need for strategic or contingency planning, or fundamental problems associated with the decision process itself. There might also be a lack of specialization, depending on the specific group of individual members and the objectives they are attempting to satisfy.

Any organization lacking hierarchy (or in some cases specialization) can expect to face limitations relating to its problem-solving ability. In circumstances where a consensus is required, the process is often sluggish and/or ineffective. This limitation can become debilitating when routine decisions are not delegated to one individual or a smaller sub-group. If the temporary delegates are constantly at risk of being excused from their function, the group may waste a significant amount of time and effort responding to internal challenge, debate, and the process to repeatedly reorganize. Such distractions would undoubtedly compete with what is presumably a more important need to complete essential tasks.

Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) are fairly common in the US and it is my impression that “upper management” typically retains voting control of the company. There are advantages and disadvantages in ESOPs, but many companies employ the concept successfully.

In terms of a “tyranny of the majority,” it really depends on the circumstance. Whenever a group of individuals join together to accomplish some objective, there must be a way to break deadlock and move forward. Any group that fails to anticipate internal disagreement and put into place a system to resolve conflict is in peril of a crippling breakdown of its functionality.

To the extent that this general line of reasoning suggests a need for a somewhat centralized authority within most organized groups, it may rather loosely relate to the concept of “might makes right.” Of course, the centralized authority must be legitimized and accepted (even if it is based primarily upon force) and whoever is ultimately empowered to judge the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of the processes and outcomes resulting from that authority’s actions is necessarily compelled to hold the authority-figure accountable. In complex hierarchies, this “authorization” to hold others accountable is less optional – as each participant in the hierarchy is accountable for the actions of other authority figures below them in the overall power structure.

I propose that whatever entity (individual or corporate) holds the power to bestow authority to others in order to accomplish an objective is ultimately responsible for the actions that are undertaken to reach that objective. In other words, the direct exercise (or delegation) of power carries with it a responsibility equivalent to that power – regardless of whether anyone outside the paradigm is watching or has the capacity to intervene or redirect the action.

By implication, might does not make right; it merely enforces an individual person or group’s objective without the nuisance of whatever opinions or considerations might otherwise be entertained in the decision(s) to bring about a particular outcome.